Re: MIME based remailing commands
Excerpts from mail: 12-Feb-95 Re: MIME based remailing co.. Rick Busdiecker@lehman.c (1544)
Well, I have no idea why you think that MIME is an "atrocity" or "slime", but it is perfectly clear that you have no idea what it actually *is*, since "X-" headers have nothing whatsoever to do with MIME. The "X-" headers are defined by RFC 822, which has been the standard for Internet mail formats since 1982.
You base a large conclusion on a small piece of data in combination with some poor duduction. Unless you are claiming that MIME violates RFC 822 with respect to the handling of X- headers you have made a number of false claims in the paragraph above.
A very interesting claim. Care to tell me what my "false claims" are, or is it a secret?
It is possible for someone to find ugliness where you find beauty without them necessarily being uninformed.
Of course. Let me tell you, though, what the real "beauty" of MIME is: It is that Internet mail was upgraded from ASCII-text-only to permit multiple character sets, images, audio, video, and arbitrary extensions, WITHOUT breaking any existing standards or software. It is that multimedia mail was defined in such a way that it can cross existing ASCII-to-EBCDIC gateways and all manner of other bizarre mail-eating paths and still be complete and comprehensible on the other end. That's the kind of "beauty" we were aiming at, so if your comments are geared to any specific technical aspects of MIME, this may be the explanation. We considered practical functioning and interoperation to be the operational definition of "beauty". -- Nathaniel
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 06:24:57 -0500 (EST) From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@nsb.fv.com> Excerpts from mail: 12-Feb-95 Re: MIME based remailing co.. Rick Busdiecker@lehman.c (1544) > Well, I have no idea why you think that MIME is an "atrocity" or > "slime", but it is perfectly clear that you have no idea what it > actually *is*, since "X-" headers have nothing whatsoever to do with > MIME. The "X-" headers are defined by RFC 822, which has been the > standard for Internet mail formats since 1982. > You base a large conclusion on a small piece of data in combination > with some poor duduction. Unless you are claiming that MIME violates > RFC 822 with respect to the handling of X- headers you have made a > number of false claims in the paragraph above. A very interesting claim. Care to tell me what my "false claims" are, or is it a secret? One is your claim that ``"X-" headers have nothing whatsoever to do with MIME.'' This was in response to my suggestion that such headers were MIME-compliant. As I said previously, unless you are claiming that MIME violates the RFC which you referenced, then these headers are MIME compliant, as I suggested, rather than completely seperated from MIME as you have suggested. The other is that I ``have no idea what [MIME] is''. I may not know as much as I should, by your judgement, however your claim is still incorrect -- presumably you were more interested in being inflammatory than accurate. Not completely out of place here . . . . Really, there was nothing very secretive about my previous or current presentation of the problems with your claims. For example, you might note that the first one that I list is simply a rewording of the message to which you most recently replied. What was it that was unclear the first time? Or *are* you suggesting the MIME violates RFC 822? Or perhaps I'm just missing something subtle in your reasoning. If so, could you elaborate? Rick
participants (2)
-
Nathaniel Borenstein -
Rick Busdiecker